Hillary is smart enough to know that those people of the "Gay Mafia" extremist factions can not be placated with a few simple bones. It doesn't behove her to drive away moderates by whole heartedly embracing extremists. She has to try to win by going to the Right (however slight that difference is) of Obama. So she will play the same "evolving" game that Obama did "wink, wink" to try to have it both ways. If she manages to get that second term, then the evolving will be over, and she'll either be on the agenda, or not on the agenda.

Just goes to show what Hillary will do to get elected. If she thought it would help her chances to get her slimy fingers on the Presidency she'd make love to a 400 lb gorilla on national TV, if she could find a gorilla whose standards were that low.

All Hillary had to do was engage the interviewer: when did you decide that same-sex marriage was legitimate? Since it's an issue that has only existed for ten years or so, since before that it was unthinkable, the interviewer would have had the following options:

1. State, hey, this is my interview, I'm the one who asks the questions! Making the interviewer the bad guy.

2. Lie, and say, I've always been in favor of gay marriage, long before it was an issue. Obvious lie. Advantage: Hillary.

3. The interviewer admits there was a time before she believed in gay marriage. Then Hillary answers, okay, Sweetie, now: at what precise moment did our former stance turn into bigotry?

#3 isn't good. The answer to the progs is that it was ok to be against SSM some time in the very distant past to win elections but it became bigotry when the polls turned in favor of it. This is nonsense, of course, morality doesn't depend on popular opinion, but it is prog reasoning. You can and must lie about your views to fool the rubes but then you must assert the correct progressive views as soon as it is feasible.

It took her a very long time to get around to "My beliefs changed." Obviously, she felt ambushed, and with good reason, the interviewer kept going back to the same question. I don't think she expected that kind of treatment from NPR. But I think every viewer understood the real reason she finally switched--society had finally gotten to the point where supporting gay marriage wasn't the political kiss of death in some areas that it had once been. Republicans need to understand this. Their core will hold their collective nose and vote Republican--when it is Dem vs Rep--when it comes down to the final analysis.

Even though the media powers worked so hard to legitimize and popularize "same sex" relationships, she probably wants to stay away from the topic. Questions about her relationship with Huma Abedin represent another large political risk. I'm sure she'd settle for "first woman President" without pushing for "first LGBT President."

My read on the HRC pre-campaign campaign is that she's just out diverting media attention from the real person the Democratic power-brokers want to push into the presidency - John Kerry. Whether they've been straight-forward with HRC or not, I couldn't say.

InstaPundit is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.